15. Did either or both classes undertake significant ? Describe that work.
After the actual collaboration period students continued to communicate for a limited time using a Facebook group page. Initially I think the students were quite excited to be connecting through a more friendly user interface. It provided an easy forum for both Mary and I to post final performance ‘product’ and it allowed for each class group to observe where the other took the voice work. The facebook interaction last until the end of the ACTT semester, and aside from the video posts by Mary and myself there was very little posted or commented on by the student.
Bruce Clarke’s TTU group started its regular American semester at the end of August, and devoted the first four weeks, prior to being joined by the German group, to the study of an anthology of science-fiction criticism and theory. Dirk Vanderbeke as the instructor of the Jena group joined in from the beginning, and occasionally some of the German students would also be present. The full collaboration began on October 1, three weeks before the official start of the semester in Jena, and lasted through the first week of December, when the TTU semester ended. During this time the assignments were mutual readings of science-fiction short stories and novels. By the end of the American semester, the German group had fulfilled the required hours for a seminar (30), but the Jena students expressed the wish to go on until Christmas because they enjoyed the topic and the discussions, and so the group had a w more sessions.
Buffalo State - the class met and worked for 8 weeks prior to GNLC start. / Cortland - the class met and worked for 4 weeks prior to GNLC start. Also, Cortland students were entered into Buffalo State’s ANGEL course (that was not part of the GNLC). I think it caused more confusion than helped. The purpose was so that Dr. Steck and the students could download readings./ BBU - the students in this class were located in different faculties at BBU and some were at graduate programmes outside of Romania; therefore, it was difficult to bring students together prior to the course.
Did begin connecting prior to the collaborative module through a group skype, the creation of group Facebook page, and a “paqueteria” exercise in which UC students were introduced to a crowdsourcing/geomapping project UDLAP students were doing on how immigrants and their families send packages/remittances between the US and Mexico. Co-Instructors engaged in an actual experiment with paqueterias (places where immigrants and their families go to send packages and remittances--typically in Mexican grocery stores in the US). UDLAP students and their instructor gathered inexpensive Mexican and UDLAP artifacts and mailed them through a Puebla paqueteria to the UC instructor and the UC instructor gathered with her Mexican student assistant UC and Cincinnati artifacts to mail to the UDLAP instructor through a paqueteria in Cincinnati. Both packages just arrived, making their way through multiple hands and courier/mail systems designed to enable immigrants and their families’ cheaper ways to send large amounts of goods and remittances.
Faculty members exchanged visits to each other classes and institutions during the semester as part of the course. Students at SUNY Cortland had a brief introduction to Turkey prior to the first face-to-face meeting but no assignment was given related to the collaboration.
In the fall semester Victoria University began their class 3 weeks before UTEP. This was a valuable time to explain the collaboration and to impart a little background information about t El Paso. This was followed by several homework exercises where students were asked to provide further information for discussion in the upcoming classes. These were fruitful exercises for introducing the broader themes of the collaborative course and the idea of imagining nations. For many of my students what they knew of their own country and El Paso or America was equally steeped in popular stereotypes. This was the kick start for the collaborative course and the critical inquiry of how nations are formed. / In the spring semester UTEP began class 3 weeks before Victoria University and so we would start by introducing our students to the nation of Australia. We engaged in a general survey of the geography, history, peoples, cultures, and politics of Australia. I also had the class engage in a scavenger hunt of sorts where they did an exercise where each student had to find three different facts about Australia. This encouraged early collaboration amongst their fellow students as well as learning about the peoples and the nation they were about to engage with. After attending COIL in September of 2012, I implemented the DIVE exercise as well to further their thinking on cultural diversity and it was very successful.
No collaboration prior. In most cases, significant collaboration after, with at least three pairs of students continuing to work on their screenplays together following the end of the course.
Reflections in Journal entries / ULPGC : students also had the possibility to meet the instructor (Richard Clouet) as they were following another English course with him in a F2F format. We took this opportunity to set up 2 training sessions. Photos and 2 videos about these sessions are available in the COIL Log. Topics covered were: how to log on Angel, how to navigate on Angel, how to navigate through Blackboard Collaborate, how to build a Voice Thread presentation, how to make this presentation public for other to add their comments. In one of these sessions, Richard and I decided to set up several dedicated spaces for each team on Angel where they would be able to share and comment their work > see screen capture in the COIL Log. Team 1: ULPGC 2 posts (same student, speaker of the team) / ESC 1 post Team 2: ULPGC 2 posts (2 different students, 1 as speaker of the team) / ESC 1 post Team 3: ULPGC 3 posts (3 different students) / ESC 3 posts (same student) Team 4: ULPGC 0 post / ESC 1 post The work involved by both students and teachers at ULPGC was very important, since Spanish learners were full time students who studied from 8am to 2pm at the ULPGC every day and had to log on the Angel platform every afternoon to complete the activities or meet their American classmates at around midnight. The follow-up by ULPGC instructors also had to take place at night, even if we had to be back in our traditional classes the following day at 8am! However, it’s something all of us (both students and teachers) did with great pleasure and enthusiasm.
Since the courses had staggered start times there was opportunity for students at UNCG to discuss collaboration prior to the collaboration period and students at AUB conducted follow up work on collaboration once UNCG completed its semester. The most significant work in this process stemmed from the ability of Dr. Hartwiger to travel to Greensboro to address questions students at UNCG might have about the collaboration and for Dr. Moore to travel to AUB at the end of the collaboration to assist in follow up conversations. One assignment that UNCG students conducted was establishing terms for successful online engagement prior to the collaboration. AUB students produced a reflection essay that enabled them to think critically about the collaboration.
Students did complete journal entries in which at the end of the semester they reflected on the collaboration.
Students met via videoconference twice and then conversed in groups of 3-5 students to form small, blog groups. The class consisted of 3 communication modes:/ videoconference (twice and one time recorded for later viewing in the Galapagos) / blogs – students blogged in small groups 4 times formally throughout the semester. They also informally (not for a grade) blogged about their experiences multiple times./ In-person visit- Dr. Diego Quiroga visited the CCU campus in Myrtle Beach to give an in-person lecture to CCU students, as well as promote the CCU-USFQ exchange partnership and create new endeavors between the two institutions.
Swarthmore: 30 minutes of synchronous collaborative time vs. 45 minutes face-time Tue and Th until DST / Ashesi: 30 minutes synchronous collaborative time vs. 1:30 hours of face-time Tue and Th until DST / After DST change: 1 hour synchronous time on Wednesdays for both
The ESC students were enrolled in Digital Storytelling, and had a longer semester (15 weeks) than the U-Vic students (7 weeks). Dr. Gupta-Carlson prepared them for the collaboration beforehand by having them create a story in VoiceThread on the experience of being a stranger. She also introduced them to the concept of hip-hop as a storytelling and community building experience by having them visit hip-hop related sites, and storyboard an imagined digital story based on the individuals profiled in her article “Planet B-Girl.” After the collaboration, the students were asked to share insights on the experience with each other via a discussion forum and one-on-one with the instructor via a written assessment. They also were given the option of creating the fifth of their five story projects on the collaboration./ The U-Vic students were enrolled in Youth Politics, and had a seven-week semester that began at the approximate mid-point of the ESC semester. They spent the first week and a half of their semester reading from one of the main texts used by the Digital Storytelling students, and visiting and analyzing the same web sites that the ESC students were making virtual field trips to. The students engaged in a real-time face-to-face discussion about the collaboration during one of their regular meeting times with Dr. Aragon.
The George Mason semester started about two and a half weeks before HSE. Steven Barnes used that time with his students to prepare them to some degree for what they would face in the collaborative aspect of the course--giving them some basic background on Russian history and culture, discussing the challenges faced by students in both classrooms in such a course, orienting them to Blackboard and having a training session in the use of Blackboard Collaborate--a potential tool for them to use in meeting their Russian counterparts for project preparation. The George Mason students were also asked to prepare group presentations on their daily lives and the best three were chosen in a class vote to be presented to HSE students in the first joint meeting. / HSE students only had one meeting before our first joint session. Irina Filatova asked a few of her students to make a presentation to the George Mason students during that first session. They did not have as much time to prepare as did the George Mason students, but it still made for a nice introduction of the students to one another.
There was much preparation and communication between the instructors, actually, working out all the details, goals, tasks, instruments as well as logistics of the joint activities (videoconferences). We were communicating with each other via Skype during the course period as well. Usually it would take place after a videoconference between our classes, so that this follow up would allow us to exchange opinions, check experiences and sum up what we achieved and what must be corrected. / SUNY Geneseo students started their semester on January 18th, therefore we had plenty of time to discuss intercultural communication theories and concepts that would relate to our collaboration. For example, we discussed units on the following topics prior to the start of our collaboration: Why Study Intercultural Communication Striving for Engaged and Effective Intercultural Communication, Culture, Communication, Power, and Context, White Privilege, Language and Intercultural , Communication, Nonverbal Codes and Cultural Space / MSU’s semester began much closer to the start of the collaboration. Students enrolled in this course took previous course work on Intercultural Theory which provided important foundational material for our collaboration.
Yes, we had a two weeks of pre-course activities written into our syllabus. Pre-Week 1 Pre-course Preparatory Tasks - NCCU/UNISA/RAMA
Because of the timing of the Japanese academic year, Junko was able to use the spring semester as a primer for the Osaka U students. Collaboration before the course at UWM was not possible because the course was open only to 1st year students just entering the university in the Fall semester. Junko and I have had some time for discussion after the course and are collaboratively working on a paper.
Before the period, No, because we have not gotten the students' list yet, but after the period, the SJSU side asked the Kagoshima students to proofread the students' Japanese reports. Kagoshima university’s semester is still going on until February, so they will work together upon Kagoshima students' request.
Class work or discussion related to their collaboration before and/or after the actually collaboration period/ Yes. One particular synchronous session involved sharing presentations on recycling. Using D2L, via Skype, students shared photos from their research. SJSU students portrayed photos and videos of California redemption value bar codes on aluminum cans and bottles and showed recycling centers where these recyclables may be redeemed for cash. Both sides showed students at their work place recycling paper and other disposable goods.